Last Year ‘Equality’ Maryland, This Year Shillerico

Seen recently (by all?  by only some?) at Shillerico:

Seen last year whilst a trans bill and a gay marriage bill were both in the Maryland Legislature (and, of course, whilst only one had any real effort behind it even though the other one was actually a trans-exterminationistic piece of shit):

The Latest From ‘Equality’ Maryland’s Trans-Othering Scrubbing Bubbles

Does Barry Allen live in Maryland?

Jay Garrick perhaps?

First this…

And just a few minutes later we find this…

Folks, we can still stop the disease that is HB235, but we have to be quicker than those who are deceptively conducting its last-minute surge.

Also seen recently at Shillerico:

Do you remember the line at the end of the first Men in Black movie – the line about Dennis Rodman?

Not much of a disguise.

Well, if Zoe is correct in her observation about what’s going on at Shillerico, Bil’s tantrums over being expected to acknowledge his mistakes don’t really constitute much of a job of deflecting people’s thoughts from what we know happened in Maryland last year – knowledge which permits anyone to make an educated guess that, at best, the same scam,second verse is being manufactured right now.

Conspiracy theories!  Conspiracy theories!

Well, what would someone not familiar with the situation have said to someone who, a year or so ago, began speaking of disappearing Facebook postings and seemingly ethereal message control by a de facto faceless entity called ‘Equality’ Maryland?

And yet we know – and have evidence of – precisely what ‘Equality’ Maryland was doing, er…, scrubbing last year to perpetrate its scam of appearing to support both gay marriage and (2/3 of) trans rights while, in reality, only supporting one and being competent at pushing neither.

Conspiracy theories!  Conspiracy theories!

Lets see…

Five gay male blog proprietors…check.

All linking to the same single item from a Canadian LGBT paper…check.

All inaccurately presenting what that single item from that Canadian LGBT paper said…check.

Several linking to one another along with that single item from that Canadian LGBT paper…check.

None of the five gay male blog proprietors (as opposed to one Bilerico contributor) being willing to admit that what they originally said about that single item from that Canadian LGBT paper was wrong…check.

John Aravosis, Joe Jervis and now Bil Browning doubling down and claiming that they “don’t feel that [they] said anything wrong”…check.

Bil Browning now using the Cathy Brennan playbook by characterizing trans people who call out all-gaymarriage-all-the-time bullshit when we see it as homophobic…check.

Stop telling lies about trans people and we’ll stop telling the truth about you.

Well, I have no idea if that comment of mine is visible or not to all of the people that Bil the Shill is pitching his (conspiracy?) theory to.  Likewise, I have no idea if this one – from Alyson Meiselman – is either, so I’ll copy it here:

Bil,

Just because you are and were inaccurate in your position, as were your friends, and.

Just because Katrina Rose caught you, and, called you and your friends out on your inaccurate and trans-phobic posts, and.

Just because you and “your kind” have an attitude problem…

When “truth” meets a conspiracy theory, that does not mean the theorist is mentally unstable or wrongly “savages gays and lesbians” inappropriately, but, it does mean that the conspiracy is REAL!

The truth hurts, but lies and misinformation are not only hurtful but scurrilous. That defines you, Bil!

Conspiracy theories!  Conspiracy theories!

Is Shillerico actually carrying the water for any particular anti-trans goal of Gay, Inc.?  Or just falling in line behind The John and his Gay Birchers who just, in general, can’t stand the notion of any letter other than ‘G’ and yearn for an America that would differ from that pined for by Rick Santorum only in that ‘G’s can legally ‘F’?

I don’t know.

I really don’t.

But…

Lets see…

Five gay male blog proprietors…

All linking to the same single item from a Canadian LGBT paper…

All five gay male blog proprietors inaccurately presenting what that single item from that Canadian LGBT paper said…

Several linking to one another along with that single item from that Canadian LGBT paper…

The comments sections of all become flooded with psychotic, visceral anti-trans venom…

None of the five gay male blog proprietors (as opposed to one Bilerico contributor) have yet to acknowledge that what they originally said about that single item from that Canadian LGBT paper said was in any way wrong…

John Aravosis, Joe Jervis and Bil Browning double down to claim that they “don’t feel that [they] said anything wrong”…

Bil Browning has now become an expert at utilizing the Cathy Brennan playbook – his copy apparently autographed by Karl Rove and the ghosts of Lee Atwater and Richard Nixon (a paw print from Checkers by chance?) – by characterizing trans people who call out all-gay-marriage-all-the-time bullshit when we see it as homophobic…

Conspiracy theories!  Conspiracy theories!

Conspiracy theories!  Conspiracy theories!

Conspiracy theories!  Conspiracy theories!

Conspiracy theories!  Conspiracy theories!

Is Shillerico actually carrying the water for any particular anti-trans goal of Gay, Inc.?  Or just falling in line behind The John and his Gay Birchers who just, in general, can’t stand the notion of any letter other than ‘G’ and yearn for an America that would differ from that pined for by Rick Santorum only in that ‘G’s can legally ‘F’?

I don’t know.

I really don’t.

But I smell something that makes skunk shit seem like Famous Dave’s BBQ ribs by comparison.

20 Responses to Last Year ‘Equality’ Maryland, This Year Shillerico

  1. Kathy says:

    I’m so old, I remember when Bil eould notify his readers that a comment was scrubbed. This is pathetic. And desperate. You’ve lost the argument on the facts, but you don’t want to admit it.

    Even Aravosis tacitly admits trans people didn’t glitter Savage in Vancouver. (It was gay people, Bil). He just says it doesn’t matter that they didn’t. That trans people are responsible for things gay people do that he thinks is like something trans people might do.

    Still waiting for the civility police to issue a summons to gay guys for comments like “eff them in their fake gashes”.

    Or is transphobic, misogynist, rape apologia OK depending upon who utters it?

  2. […] its only been 10 1/2 months or so – for this, anyway (for others, well…) – but let us go there nevertheless… A comment by laughriotgirl on one of the threads at […]

  3. Jessica says:

    I find it amusing that references to Xtra always call it a ‘Canadian LGBT paper,’ when the briefest look at the website of its owner, Pink Triangle Press, will show that its mandate does NOT include transsexual, even transgender people, it also does not include bisexual people.

    Not quite LGBT.

    The author of the article in question, Gareth Kirkby, with whom I have had many not so exciting run-ins when he was editor/publisher of the Ottawa edition of Xtra–then called Capital Xtra–is also not know for his fulsome support for anything beyond the L and the G.

    More recently, under current editorial direction, Xtra has gotten very deep into it over its Assignment Editor’s outing of a trans woman’s previous name. (His previous comments that trans peoples’ concern only for pronouns made trans people ‘not serious’ as opposed to the seriousness of the deaths of gay people in Africa did not raise any response.) The campaign to demand legitimate answer to this outrage was silenced by the power of L and G people in Toronto, where Xtra has long made its home–as the successor of The Body Politic.

    As I say, it is amusing an organization which gives second class status to anyone other than L and G would be used by other entities that do the same.

    At least Xtra does not refer to itself as LGBT.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      I’ve seen a number of stories about the trans-related problems with Xtra.

      I try to be charitable in referring to it as ‘LGBT’, in no small part because – unlike the Fab(rication) Five of American gay male bloggers – at least one person connected to Xtra saw fit to correct a mistake about a reference to the Vancouver incident when it was pointed out to her.

  4. Jessica says:

    Charitibility (if there is such a word), I suspect, is like beauty, and like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    From my perspective, of some years, I am less willing to do this. Rather, I suspect, as your knowledge of the Fab Five so conditions you.

    I also had a run-in with Bil a number of years ago, when I still harboured thoughts of developing a blogging career. I was amazed by one who resigned her blog at Bilerico in the wake of the Gold scandal, only to return later. I have pursued another path since then; I am fortunate in being able to do so.

  5. Bugbrennan says:

    To be clear, I am calling out the crappy gender identity legislation you favor as anti-female. It’s misogyny.

    Also, good for anyone who deletes your comments. No one has a “right” to not be deleted.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      No one has a “right” to not be deleted.

      Therefore, no one has a right to learn accurate history.

      Its amazing what we learn from the Grand Scribe of the Intellectual Garbage Dump of the East Coast.

      Have a nice day!

    • valeriekeefe says:

      Again, women are the only people who can identify as female. What’s wrong with a statute giving us legal status based on the midbrain?

      Oh, right… because you’re more concerned about excluding women with atypical bits.

    • friday jones says:

      So Khadijah Farmer isn’t a “female” in your eyes? By the way, “female” is what misogynist men call WOMEN. And adult human who happens to be female is a “woman.” Using “female” as a noun instead of an adjective makes YOU the misogynist, cookiepuss.

      • valeriekeefe says:

        I tend to think cissexism applied to trans women is rather disgustingly misogynistic. Calling a trans woman in effect, a man in a dress, (Cheers Dana Lane!) is centering man as the default, and ignoring what actually makes a woman in a sapient species a woman.

  6. Kathleen says:

    Having put some barriers to people attempting to discriminate against me in both employment and public accommodations doesn’t seem particularly craptastic. Kept me employed once – got someone in trouble for interfering with my credit application another time.

    It’s now ten years since we passed that in my burg – none of nonsense bigots are trying to gin up have happened. The first in this state was 1983? In thirty years – again de nada.

    In the first year of it passing I was contacted by a kid attending college who was being kicked out of housing because they found out about her history. It was that law (and a bit of intervention on my part) that allowed that kid to stay in school. The human rights commission is amazed at the number of complaints received (and verified) by trans people.

    Craptastic? Only if you think we should be discriminated against. And – if you’re like Aravosis and believe that it doesn’t matter what trans people have actually done – what matters is what you think without proof they would do.

    Exactly the same as people saying lesbians shouldn’t have civil rights because they might be teachers & allowed near girls. No proof was ever shown that lesbians were more likely to abuse girls than others – but – since it was what bigots thought was the kind of things lesbians would do – it wasn’t bigotry in their minds.

    But it was. And it is.

  7. zoebrain says:

    I don’t think it was a conspiracy.

    I think in some ways it was and is worse. Groupthink, self-organising, no-one has to co-ordinate with each other because they all think the same thing.

    Bil has personal medical issues I refuse to discuss. I’m willing to cut him an unreasonable amount of slack, lest I cause damage, and I’d appreciate it if you used quiet but persistent reminders (rather than pressure) there.

    The others – you’re better at the surgical application of vitriol than I am. Xtra in particular deserves rather more of it than they get.

    Katrina, we have very different styles. I find yours irritating sometimes, and I’m sure you find mine infuriatingly wishy-washy. You’ve never, not once, called me out on that though.

    That must have taken some forebearance. It’s appreciated.

    I also appreciate that while there’s a place and time for diplomatic negotiation, there’s a place and time where “proportionate response” is not appropriate, or rather, the proportionate response is to nuke ’em till they glow, no holds barred.

    Thanks for providing that service. It’s necessary that someone does, even if it gives me the irrits sometimes. I doubt anything I could say or do could stop you, but in any case, you have my full support, if that’s worth anything. Please keep it up.

  8. friday jones says:

    If you mean by “medical issues” that Bil is bipolar, that has come up already. So when does the sweet side of the cycle come around? He seems to swing from neutral to hostile and then back, never hitting anything close to friendly. He amplified Crowder’s shitty “trans mafia” slur, then he started this glitter bomb shitstorm. The result was “Eff those trannies in their fake gashes.” I see no reason to cut Bil any slack whatsoever. His brain worked well enough to jack us over.

    And I don’t know about you having “a wishy-washy style,” it’s your appropriation of the intersex label that steals away your own thunder in my own opinion. Explaining our variances as part of a natural continuum is fine, but the situations are inverse between trans and intersex, and intersex people face a different set of oppressions and other issues. Support them, be their allies, but don’t appropriate their label. And I mean this not as a slam, but with respect. I do respect what you write.

    • zoebrain says:

      You’ve caught me at a bad time. As you may know, I have CAH, thought to be from late onset Non-SW 3BHDD. No other cause fits, 3BHDD does. CAH was obvious from the first set of ultrasounds I had, back in 2005, but the cause was unknown, and it was just one anomaly amongst many rather more obvious ones.

      I was made aware on Valentine’s day, of an Australian Court case that ruled that, while Trans women are legally male pre-transition for the purposes of marriage, those who have CAH are not.

      See http://www.intersexions.org/n1853-intersex-and-marriage

      She did not in fact marry a male but a combination of both male and female and notwithstanding that the husband exhibited as a male, he was in fact not….

      “marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

      I am satisfied on the evidence that the husband was neither man nor woman but was a combination of both, and a marriage in the true sense of the word as within the definition referred to above could not have taken place and does not exist.

      The medical facts of the case differ only in detail, the two situations are not legally distinguishable. Our marriage is a legal nullity, should it ever be tested..

      Our 31st anniversary is in a week. So I’m acutely aware of the issues, OK? As with Biologist Dr Veronica Drantz, I see that biologically, Transsexuality is a small subset of Intersex. The law in Australia and the UK says otherwise, and this is not the first time I’ve come up against that.

      Still, go ahead believing what you will. I just wish that those who think I’m “appropriating” something would contribute to my continuing medical bills. And legal ones. Bills not “appropriate” for Transsexual people. Whatever, it’s not important. I don’t mean to disrespect you there, it’s just that I have far more important and urgent things on my plate than to worry about others misunderstandings. I hope you’ll forgive me.

      • friday jones says:

        It’s not in my purview to judge your reactions to the things I say, it’s up to me to own any harm I’ve done you, and if I’ve hurt your feelings, I certainly apologize and would like to reassure you that I meant only the mildest criticism. I’m more of an agnostic on the topic of the brain/mind/nature/nurture origin potentials for the concept of and expression of gender identity. It’s all hypothetical until someone puts an eye out, right?

      • zoebrain says:

        Apology accepted, hopefully with the same grace it was tendered with. Thanks.

        I can understand the agnosticism – reasonable people can disagree on what weight to put on the evidence.

        As I said, you caught me at a Bad time. There’s a lot of behind-the-scenes working with legislators to do on this one. We have bipartisan goodwill, just lack of detailed knowledge on their part. They don’t believe that this kind of thing actually happens, not in this country, not in the 21st century, so we have to give them chapter-and-verse.

        The irony is of course that the judgement was correct. I wasn’t male at the time, and not just because of my neuro-anatomy (though I think that’s the only part that matters). So under the law as it stands (but hopefully won’t for much longer) the judge had no choice but to make the decision he did. Whether I was female or not is another issue, and irrelevant.

        Feel free to criticise me, BTW. Without critique, how will my views improve?

  9. […] its only been 10 1/2 months or so – for this, anyway (for others, well…) – but let us go there nevertheless… A comment by laughriotgirl on one of the threads at […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: